Development Interventions for Rural Women - Essay Example

How might incorporation of ‘gender’ into development planning enhance development interventions?  Development Interventions for Rural Women: Making the Case for a Gendered Frame for Land Titling Programs This paper looks at the imperative of incorporating gender, or using a gender lens in crafting policy responses and development interventions to alleviate rural poverty. I argue that analysing rural poverty and formulating development plans without looking at gender asymmetries within the household will render development efforts cosmetic at best, and problematic at worst. One of the most popular development projects being embarked upon all over the world by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank is land titling. Land titling, it is believed, gives the poor a way out of poverty and integrating them into the markets. But many land titling programs as development projects do not take into account gender inequalities. Land lies at the heart of agrarian economies; which includes much of the developing world. Traditionally it has formed the basis of power, social status and is a vital productive resource. For rural women, however, the unequal ownership and control of this valued asset has become a critical factor that has created and reinforced gender inequality. World wide, in many rural societies women, like men, are active farmers and play substantial roles in primary agriculture production. Yet, they own very little land and are instead dependent upon social and customary provisions for indirect use as daughters, wives, mothers and community members (Agrawal, 1996). These rights are linked primarily to access, which do not grant security when traditional family structures dissolve in the case of divorce, desertion, widowhood and separation (Agrawal, 1989). This is especially relevant in todays context which is characterized by globalization, land commoditization, HIV/AIDs epidemic and increased feminization of agriculture (Agrawal, 1996, Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003, Razavi, 2009). According to Agrawal (1996), the idea of male bread-winner underlies the justification of men as legitimate owners of land; as it is assumed that sons will take care of mothers, while husbands and brothers will take care of wives and sisters respectively. Drawing upon the existing feminist literature, the paper seeks to draw out the arguments for womens land rights as a development intervention paradigm which maintain that it will lead to equality, empowerment, welfare and efficiency; followed by the discussions on the difficulties of its enforcement and consequences given existing cultural norms. The paper then discusses two case studies to highlight the benefits that have accrued as well as the restrictions women face in exercising their claims. Finally, the paper ends by making reflections on how gender should shape and recast development policies as a whole. Land rights can arise from a variety of sources such as inheritance, state transfers, community membership, as well as purchases. It constitutes a measure of "security" over its ownership and control; which is different from "access" that is limited to usufruct rights which allows the cultivation of land, due to some informal agreement or customary provision with kin, but not power over its control (Agrawal, 1996). Theoretical discourses around womens rights over land titling have revolved around the potential benefits that can accrue towards the strengthening of womens empowerment, greater equality, increase in family welfare and higher efficiency (Agrawal, 1989, 1996). Its basis also lies in the Human Rights based approach to development as well as the non-discrimination principle as embedded in Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); which makes it clear that efforts to end discrimination against women must include the recognition of womens rights to own, inherit and administer property in their own names (CEDAW,2004). According to Agrawal (1996), secure titling increases womens security as well as her influence our household decision making processes1. Drawing upon studies showing the differential effects of men and womens income, such as child nutrition2, food expenditures and marital violence3, proponents point out that securing womens land access will also promote welfare and well-being of women and her families. Equally argued is the efficiency argument which contends that land titles leads to greater incentives4 and access to productive credit (Agrawal, 1996); such as irrigated water, seeds, fertilizers, agricultural implements, extension services which are often conditioned by access to land holdings. Other authors, however are more cautious towards the transformative expectations of womens land tenure holdings (Jackson, 2003; Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003), pointing towards the mosaic and fluid nature of land ownership and access, which are themselves "social relationships" that vary across nations, regions, religions and cultures; authors such as OLaughlin and Moore, argue that property rights are not an individual and absolute "person-resource" relationship; rather a reflection of a variety of interests and mutual interdependence (Rao, 2005 quoting OLaughlin and Moore). Studies have shown that having legal titling rights does not necessarily lead to women exercising their rights unhindered (Agrawal, 1996; Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003, Rao, 2005). This may be because of legal and administrative restrictions actually accompanying the rights themselves (Agrawal, 1996). Others point towards local cultural interpretations along with customary practices and ideologies, attached to accessing labour, productive inputs, agricultural extension services (Jackson, 2003; Due, 1997). Jackson (2003) further points out that in some cases the "social context" may "… (be) imbued with desirable attributes" (Jackson, 2003) that provide some security for women over accessing land. As shown by the growing discourses centred around customary rights in Africa being converted into private land titling resulting in setbacks for women, as they are left even more insecure (Mackenzie, 1998, Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003; Jackson, 2003; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997). African Feminist Lawyers however, point towards customary practices as sites of power dominated by men; where women have diverse types of access, and "…women do not perceive their rights to land as insecure…"(Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003:89, quoting Leonard and Toulmin), until their community relations dissolve. They therefore view the need for legally back land ownership for women to be critical Case Study of West Bengal (India) The state of West Bengal in East India, covers 2.7% of Indias cultivable land. Producing approximately 8 % of the food grains for the country, it is characterized by small and marginal farm holdings of less than 1 hectare5. Here, land rights are predominantly patrilineal (Agrawal, 1994; Roy and Tisdell, 2002). Though women do have the statutory land titling rights as granted by the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 (Agrawal, 1994). But, in the majority of cases they have merely usufruct access over the land as wives, daughters and sisters. In their study of rural West Bengal, Roy and Tisdell (2002) note that a widows ownership of land can lead to better treatment from sons, than those who are landless and dependent. Security, in such cases, is therefore contingent on ownership of land holdings. They further point out that, even within the tribal communities, such as the Santals, receiving a larger share of land amongst sons is linked with those who care for her (Roy and Tisdell, 2002). Rao (2005) further adds that within these tribal communities, women, as daughters, in the absence of male heirs can also inherit her fathers lands under the "gharjawae" system. But, under such practices, her husband must forfeit his own parental claims and instead agree to live and cultivate his wifes land (Rao, 2005). This practice is based upon both customary as well as legal6 mechanisms. Here, however, similar to the barriers faced by other non-tribal women, Rao (2005) points towards the reality that legal provisions are difficult to enforce and are dependent upon local interpretations and interests of kin. She provides examples whereby women (and her family) have been forced to move away from ancestral property under the threat of physical violence, and in some cases actual death when legal support was sought (Rao, 2005). According to her since land lies at the heart of social, political and economic power relations, the growing scarcity and intense competition over its access is seen as the loss of a fundamental economic asset as well as a direct competition over patriarchal norms, which is opposed (Rao, 2005). The influence of patriarchal norms is also seen in the post-marital residence and kinship systems; whereby local systems forbid girls from marrying within the same villages (Agrawal, 1994). Women are therefore required to move once she is married, which not only hampers her legal rights and access as cultivators, due to long distances; but it also discourages parents from bequeathing land to daughters (Agrawal, 1994; Roy and Tisdell, 2002)7. Deconstructing the household decision making processes in relation to subjectivity and trade-offs, Agrawal argues that in many instances women may choose to forgo some rights, if it suits their "self interest" in the long term (Agrawal, 2010). This perspective can also be applied to the issues revolving around land rights, whereby women agree to forfeit their claims over parental property in favour of their brothers, so that they may call upon their support at a later date (Agrawa, 1994; Roy and Tisdell, 2002). However, if women do take legal measures to gain control over land then, according to Roy and Tisdell (2002), male kin members may take a variety of measures to prevent her from gaining control. These may include: getting her disinherited, forging the wills of fathers after his death, start expensive legal proceedings, carry out beatings and even murders under the false pretext of "witchcraft"(Agrawal, 1996; Roy and Tisdell, 2002). According to OLaughlin (1995), when gendered discourses merely emphasize the needs and interests of women, they are guilty of "methodological individualism" (OLaughlin, 1995). Rather, she argues one needs to focus upon gendered relations which are interdependent. For example, the efficiency argument over land rights asserts that it will lead to increased access to credit and productive inputs (Agrawal, 1994). The study by Roy and Tisdell (2002) however shows that women cannot farm their lands on their own, and as such require male labour, networks and implements – which in many instances may be with held. They therefore require male support, especially of influential individuals such as village heads, if their claims are to be effective. Case Study of Gogo Tribe in Dodoma District (Tanzania) Dodoma district lies in central Tanzania, and is the site of the nations capital. In the rural areas, the topography is barren and dry, with the majority of the Gogo tribal inhabitants practicing a mixture of agriculture and herding (Yngstrom, 2002). According to Yngstrom (2002), marriage is the basis on which both men and women gain access to land and labour. She points out that, within this community, historically, customary laws grants land to a man on the onset of his marriage. Wives on the other hand receive a proportion of her husbands lands; whereby, she becomes responsible for household food provisioning. At the same time, she must also provide (unpaid) labour for her husbands lands. Marriage therefore provides access, but only as long as the women remains married. If she divorces, she is expected to leave the lands and also her children, who are regarded as her husbands property (Yngstrom, 2002). In the case of widowhood, Yngstrom, points out that the mother acts as the guardian for her son(s), unless she re-marries, at which point she must give up all access rights. Daughters can however also gain ownership of land, if it falls under "lineage land" Yngstrom (2002). This term applies to land that was appropriated by lineage groups through clearing of land. Tracing this practice back to the 19th century, Yngstrom, points out that while land could pass onto daughters, this practice has become rarer as populations increased, land available for clearing declined, livestock8 endowments decreased9, which led to "…senior men to assert greater control over land, by limiting land transfers made by lineage members to female family members" (Yngstrom, 2002:30). In some cases, Yngstrom points out that land already provided was even taken back; in some cases forcefully, while in others sisters willingly returned ancestral lands to their brothers to maintain good relations with their kin. Whitehead and Tsikata (2003) argue that womens control over her labour and land has gradually declined with the onset of globalization as local communities get integrated into wider economic systems (Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003). Yngstroms historical study of the Gogo community. She argues that the outmigration of youth to work in plantations, during colonialism, as well as the integration of the Gogo community with wider market economies through the production of cash crops (groundnuts), which are the primary source of cash income for the community, have significantly affected tenure relationships. According to Yngstrom (2002), this has resulted in men reinforcing their control over the cultivation of groundnuts as well as greater demands over the labour of women. Equally significant is that, similar to women in West Bengal, women of this community, not only face tenure insecurities but also much greater barriers for the exercising of their rights. Yngstrom (2002) provides a good example of this, whereby, women who sought legal measures to re-take lineage land, a practice which is recognized by the 1999 Tanzanian Land Acts10, faced varying degrees of opposition from male kin-relationships; with successes being achieved for only those cases when women were able to draw upon the support of their maternal uncles. Gendered land titling Interventions as improving women’s claims Concerns over insecurities and increasing conflict have been highlighted as damaging effects of privatization and registration of land titles due to the free-market modernizing approaches to individual tenure (Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003, Mackenzie, 1998). In addition, it is mainly the men who get their names on the deeds as the titling process is usually based upon the conceptualization of the "household head". Equally, significant is that just titling land "…(does) not transform customary tenure system into a freehold one… " (Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003:79, citing Lastarria-Cornhiel). African feminist lawyers such as Mololomme and Cook however, contend that though there are enforcement problems with statutory laws, they nevertheless provide better opportunities than just customary rights. For them, "…legally backed land ownership is critical to rural womens production and economic efficiency"(Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003:90). Whether land registration can lead to greater improvement in womens claim over land rights depends upon the prevailing nature of legal and customary rights, which are dependent upon their historical evolution; the legal institutions established for their enforcement as well as the social structures that either support or restrict their claims. In the two case studies presented above, one similarity is evident – if womens claims have a chance of becoming effective then, then they require the support of men. However, there are variations within this aspect; whereby in the case of West Bengal it was seen that even though legal ownership rights are in place, customary rights to access the property are more important for womens empowerment (Roy and Tisdell, 2003). Here, I believe that even registration of land titles would not result in improvements of a womans land claims. Rather, due to the entrenched notion of patriarchal norms coupled with growing land scarcity, women demanding and seeking to register land claims would only invite conflict; as detailed by Rao (2005). The case of lineage land amongst the Gogo women, however, provides a more optimistic scenario where registration may lead to greater claims and acceptance. Especially in cases when male kin have sought to reclaim land from women on the grounds that women should stick to cultivating their husbands lands. According to Yngstrom (2002), this argument is very powerful as it "…brings into play the gendered ideologies shaping womens responsibilities as wives in production for the household while simultaneously downplaying their historical claims… (Yngstrom, 2002:30). According to Knowles, legal pluralism has been "…inimical to womens claims" (Whitehead and Tsikata, 2003:90 citing Knowles), primarily because it allows men to manipulate between systems to achieve their own interests. In such cases, I believe that registration of lineage land titles would provide women with security at best or at least a vehicle to claim their access when their rights are threatened. The two case studies in West Bengal and Dodoma District show that women have faced different forms of tenure insecurity as wives and daughters in their relation with their kin. Whereby, having land rights can make a notable difference in increasing her security. This however, is contingent on a "bundle of rights" (Jackson, 2003) that must encompass legal, customary as well as local practices and interpretations. Equally significant, is the support of men needed to exercise womens claims. The two case studies show that the barriers faced by women are similar as well as divergent; and as such blanket policy recommendations should not be prescribed. Rather, depending upon existing local realities, historical evolution of customary and legal rights, measures need to be adopted that addresses specific contexts. The over-all message is that intervention projects in general must not be neutered of gendered realities. References Agrawal, B. (1989), Rural Women, Poverty and Natural Resources, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.24, no.43 Agrawal, B. (1994), A Field of Ones Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia, Cambridge University Press, 1994 Agrawal, B. (1996), Gender, Property and Land Rights: Bridging a critical gap in economic analysis and policy, in E. Kuiper and J. Sap, Out of the Margins, London/NY, Routledge, pp 264-285 Due, J.M (1997), Gender Again- Views of Female Agricultural Extension Officers by Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania, World Development, Vol.25, No.5, pp 713-725 Jackson, C (2003), Gender Analysis of Land: Beyond land Rights for Women?, Journal of Agarian Change, Vo. 3, No. 4, October 2003, pp 453-480 Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. (1997), Impact of Privatization on Gender and Property Rights in Africa, World Development, Vol. 25, No.8, pp1317-1333 OLaughlin, B. (1995), Myth of the African Family in the World of Development, in D.F. Bryceson (ed.), Women Wielding the Hoe: Lessons from Rural Africa for Feminist Theory and Development Practice, Oxford, Berg Publishers, pp63-91 Rao, N. (2005), Questioning Womens Solidarity: The Case of Land Rights, Santal Paraganas, Jharkhand, India, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp 353-375 Razavi, S. (2009), Engendering the Political Economy of Agarian Change, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.36, No. 1, pp 197-226 Roy, K.C. and Tisdell, C.A (2002), Property Rights in Womens Empowerment in Rural India: A review International Journal of Social Economics, 2002 UNIFEM, (2004), CEDAW: Restoring Rights to Women, UNIFEM, New Delhi, 2004 Whitehead, A. and Tsikata, D. (2003), Policy Discourses on Womens Land Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Implications of the Re-turn to the Customary, Journal of Agarian Change, Vol.3, No.1 Yngstrom (2002), Women, Wives and Land Rights in Africa: Situating Gender Beyond the Household in the Debate Over Land Policy and Changing Tenure Systems, Oxford Development Studies, Vol:30, No:1, 2002 Read More